igneum/docs/plans/consequences-decisions.md

Consequence decisions for the project lead (night of 5 October 2026)

Sibling of ledger-decisions.md. Each is a consequence of a measured number that needs the project lead: money, a public claim, or a consensus parameter outside tonight's delegation. The row number points at consequences-2026-10-05.md. Recommendation first, then the options.

#	Row	What needs deciding	Recommendation	Why
D1	C1	The fee switch lands at H = 210,000 about 19:50Z on 6 October, and the 0.3.10 node's export does not carry the switch, so every app prover's shards are refused or vetoed from H. Move H, or race 0.3.11 onto every prover first	If 0.3.11 (with the proving-v1 fork, whose export carries daaScore and feesV1ActivationDaa) is not on every prover by 16:00Z on 6 October, republish the override with H = tip + 86,400 rounded to the next thousand, re-read the digest on a scratch node, every node in one sweep (the fee-switch plan's own rule for a later H). The coordinator holds the devnet delegation; this note is so the morning does not find proving dark	A dark proving pool on the devnet costs nothing on chain (the escrow keeps it) but every coverage, latency and fleet number measured after H is void
D2	C3	The litepaper says "12 GB or more proves full shards"; the only measurement puts the prover alone at 13.8 GB on a 32 GB card	The sweep and the S_p curve are in (proving agent, 5 October late): no knob moves the floor; 12 GB proves nothing on SP1 6.8.1, 16 GB proves only empty shards alone, 24 GB proves the adopted 30,000-pgas shard (20.4 GB alone, about 22 GB beside the miner), 32 GB proves everything. Change the sentence to "24 GB or more proves; 32 GB proves and mines on one card" and evidence row 16 to tested-by-the-team on those rows; the 12 GB figure returns only if a smaller GPU server or a smaller shard measures under 12 GB. The proving agent has drafted the two replacement sentences on its branch (app 440fd59, litepaper and evidence rows 15 and 16); nothing is pushed, so the project lead approves or rewrites the draft rather than starting from the measurement	A public number that the first 3060 owner disproves is the FUD the ledger exists to prevent
D3	C8, C13	The homepage says "Any 4 GB card" and the litepaper says a 4 GB card mines for about four years and an 8 GB card for more than a decade; the tile says "4B hard cap" while the rule mints about 3.96 billion	Replace with the lifetime table's numbers once the sub-agent lands it: "4 GB cards mine at launch; 8 GB for about six years; 12 GB for about fourteen; the dataset grows half a gigabyte a year" and "cap 4 billion, about 3.96 billion ever minted"	The schedule is public and the arithmetic is one line; a reader will do it
D4	C9, C8	Index mapping at gate 1, now with the lifetime table (docs/analysis/card-lifetime-2026-10-05.md): (a) multiply-shift, continuous growth: 4 GB cards out at 1.0 to 1.5 years, 8 GB at 6.3 to 7.5, 12 GB at 12 to 13.5, Apple 8 GB at 2.6 to 3.4; (b) power-of-two steps at years 4, 12, 28, 60: 4 GB to year 4, 8 GB to year 12, 12 GB to year 28 (the cache freed after the build, decided by the coordinator at 22:50), each tier ending on a step day	(b), with the step calendar published on the miners page from day one (the years 4, 12, 28 and 60 named beside the tiers), and the 1 GiB vectors kept. Revised from (a) at 23:0x: the table shows (b) is the only mapping under which the litepaper's "4 GB about four years, 8 GB more than a decade" holds, and a step day known twelve years ahead is a schedule, not an event; the coordinator recommends the same	Under (a) both public sentences are wrong today by 2.5 to 5 years; under (b) they hold and the cliffs are dated
D5	C10	The site's "under 2x" chip claim: the scratch layer leaves the on-die-cache recompute chip at 2.4x at every share; the mixer multiplier x2 brings it to 1.2x at twice the CPU verify cost (about 0.9 ms per warp, half the pool members per core)	Carry the mixer x2 into class v3 on the devnet tonight (the coordinator's gates apply, the verify time per warp measured) and keep the claim; if the coordinator judges it outside the delegation, qualify the claim in level 3 until the project lead says	The claim is the project's first public sentence on chips; it is either true by a measured lever or it is marked
D6	C11	Whether class v3 should favour AMD (fewer, wider loads per hash) at a cost to the 5090's latency-bound share, or accept that AMD cards mine at about a seventh of a 5090 and 4.5x the electricity per hash	Accept it for v3 and say so on the miners page ("NVIDIA first; AMD mines at a lower rate per watt on this class"); open the AMD question as a Counter ASIC 3.0 item with its own measurement	Tonight's rule was the project lead's and the 5090 margin is the anti-chip argument; AMD's position is a public-copy question, not a gate
D7	C13	Same as D3's supply wording	with D3
D8	C7	The miner page says "One click: install, start, the card mines and proves" (site/miner.html 7, 13, 21; site/index.html 484). On HiveOS and the rig installer a rig mines only until a Linux prover build is published, and on the app a 12 GB card mines only, a 16 GB card proves with the miner paused, 20 GB and up does both (the sweep of 5 October, before the v1-shard row)	Qualify the sentence on the miner page and the homepage card: "the card mines; 24 GB cards prove too, 32 GB does both at once; rigs mine until the Linux prover ships". The same page's "a visible 1% software fee you can switch off" becomes "solo mining carries a 1% software fee you can switch off; in a pool the pool's own fee is the only one" once pool-v0 ships (the pool agent fixed the rule: no software dev fee in pool mode)	The sentence is the product's first promise and tonight's measurement bounds it by card